Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

My wife and I lived for 14 years as "simple communitarians". And I took that a step further, and ran a million-dollar publishing business as a simple small "c" communist. Means of production held in common; each according to abilities, each according to needs, the whole nine yards. I left when it became too successful, (and it is still flourishing today), and I spent more time handling money than I liked.

My Indian "parents" (long story) have lived as Gandhian communitarians for their entire (70-year) adult lives. I'm busy finishing a book about them that will be out next spring called "The Color of Freedom"). My mother collects children off rubbish heaps. If you ask her how many children she has, she'll look you right in the eye and ask back, "how many are there?"

Would you like a gold star, or a cookie? :p

The fact is, any Christian worthy of the name has tried his best to do good works. Yet all fall short of the glory of God.

If you want the penultimate guilt trip, stare at your M&H next time you walk by it, and think of how many hungry children that much money would feed.

Don't think that it hasn't crossed my mind (and on many more than one occasion.) Among other reasons is that I KNOW what Jesus would likely say about me (concerning my "wealth", not about the "wealth" itself ), and I'm even willing to quote it, unlike some people I know. No guilt trip though -- looking for the pattern in Jesus doesn't allow us down that road.

I do think that, on this point, Gandhi was much closer to the inspiration of Jesus than Paul and Timothy, regardless of Irenaeus' opinion:

Originally posted by Renauda: Then it stands to reason that God is perfect and creation must therefore also be perfect as He could not create imperfection. [/b]

Why not? I don't see how that follows. [/b]

Of course it does. Think about it. Besides what has logic or reason got to do with this debate. Since St. Paul is infallible in spiritual matters, so too must St. Peter and the Pope- just as the RC church claims.

...Or does it mean that during the act of creation God had to make a choice between free will or perfect creation? Totally irrelevant.

Jolly: I admit the tick-tock was tactless abd silly. It won't happen again. Although Shantinik's question did require a well thought out response outside the box.

_________________________"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

If one believes the Bible to be the divine, inspired, inerrant Word of God, does a difference exist between the spoken words of God, and those written words he caused to be put on parchment by the hand of man?

If those writers were divinely inspired, then is not the letters of Paul, or Timothy, divine in its' own right?

I wasn't around to hear Jesus speak, and I doubt you were either, so what we are basing his words on, are again, the divinely guided writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Of course, I also notice that Jesus spoke again in Revelations.

Or do you not include those words, either, since they are not part of the Synoptic Gospels?

(who is said anything about "the" divinely inspired "inerrant", "Word of God". Last I read, it says it right in my Book (I think I own the same translation as you, though I prefer the New Oxford because of the notes), Timothy wrote some letters and Paul wrote some letters, and...)

Originally posted by Jolly:If those writers were divinely inspired, then is not the letters of Paul, or Timothy, divine in its' own right?...I'm taking it all to heart, you are picking and choosing. [/b]

Does this mean that I can quote St. Francis- he must have been divinely inspired in order to receive the stigmata.

Or what about Mohammed and the Qu'ran? That too, we are told, is the Word of God.

_________________________"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Sorry for the delay Mr. Shantana, but some of us do work for a living...

Let us take the case of the young rich man. Did Jesus tell him to his face that he could not enter the kingdom of heaven?

I don't think the Absolute Truth of the world would have had a problem with that, do you?

No, he spoke to his disciples about the young man, after the man left. The man's love of money, more than the love of God was his downfall, not the actual money itself.

For the love [/b] of money is the root of all evil - money is neither good, nor evil, in and of itself. Is a garden hoe evil? It like money, is nothing more than a tool. It can be used to tend a garden to feed one's family, or neighbors, or it can be used in a swift and deadly fashion - I would have no problem killing another person with a hoe, should I choose it as a weapon.

So back to camels and needles. I've already given you a different interpretation, which you have dismissed out of hand, but which many Biblical scholars consider entirely possible.

However, if Jesus wanted to say that no rich people would ever make it to Heaven, would he have not said so?

Seems to me, that John 3:16 pretty much covers the world, donchya think? It does not say, For God so loved the poor... or For God so loved the righteous , it says whosoever believeth in him[/b] , does it not?

Also notice that Jesus did not define what size camel, nor what type needle. Perhaps my interpretation is correct, perhaps yours is. Even with your definition, with God, all things are possible.

i thought this email i got this morning from a friend was apropos of the debate here on homosexuality and the law of the bible:

> Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative: > > Dear Dr. Laura: > > Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. . End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them. > > 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? > > 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus > 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? > > 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. > > 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? > > 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? > > 6. Eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10. Is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality? I don't agree. Can you settle this? > > 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? > > 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? > > 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? > > 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?- Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) > > I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. > > Your devoted disciple and adoring fan. > >

Note the abortion thread, benedict, for there is a difference between murder, and killing.

I didn't think one second that you would murder someone. I just wondered : if Jesus would have had to kill someone (if He judged it necessary to fulfill the plans of God), would he have used the same tool as you ?

Originally posted by Jolly: [/i] , it says whosoever believeth in him[/b] , does it not?

[/b]

That could mean pretty much all of us our saved. Stop worrying. Do we just need to believe that a guy named Jesus existed...

I think if we really "believed" -- that is that this life is just a test...and that all of eternity awaited us, we might live our lives a bit differently. Why waste even a moment of our lives doing anything but worshiping the Lord and helping our fellow beings?

I deleted that post, bendict (something I rarely do), as I realized it had to do with pique's silliness, and not my posts.

I do not see what is silly in the very intelligent post Pique gave us the honour of reading despite her very heavy outdoor schedule.

She just noticed that if God had spoken to us in the Bible, he certainly wish now he had remained silent on certain subjects like slavery, stoning ...

I find it so arrogant to tell everybody that there is only one way to think or believe and that other religions or people with no religion are necessary in the right.

Would you call that a form of cultural autism ?

If someone says things in his club or tribe, it is one thing. But saying in a group of all kinds of intelligent and sensitive people from different countries, roots and life course that they know the truth and that it is as they say and they are wrong and/or silly makes me think of a very authoritarian parent.

i don't mind you answering the column, but you should try to do it in the same spirit. my column is light hearted and tongue in cheek. yours isn't

That reminded me of pique.

Imagine my surprise when Bernie reports on showing the message to his girlfriend.

My girlfriend stared at the script and said, “She’s a psycho. Anybody I’ve ever met who uses lowercase ‘i’s has always been completely insane.” I nodded my head. I told her that based on the countless tissue paper pieces I’d read by the “Liberties” columnist, there may be great truth in her theory.

While Maureen may prove the rule, our pique, obviously, is an exception.

_________________________
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell...

A column from the wicked Dr. Laura (you know, the one that promotes parenting, responsibility, and conservatism):

At least the lady has the guts to sign her own opinions. I've googled this morning, and slogged through all the gay rights -we hate-everybody-that-doesn't-agree-with-us websites, and the letter pique postedis anonymous, and claimed by no one![/b]

I've been on vacation for two weeks. This is the first year we decided not to visit some distant land and have poetic adventures. Considering the current world state of chaos, we decided to stay closer to home and just do the things we love to do.

I have two dear, dear girlfriends who became even more dear during this blessed time off. One of them introduced me to sailing some nine or 10 months ago, the other got me into serious bicycling – although she and I spell "seriously" quite differently: 20 miles of up and down hills is my ride and her warm-up.

So just about every day, I got up, took a bike ride – earning the calorie-fest of a big breakfast – and then went sailing, often with dolphins at my bow, jellyfish in the swells and sunfish like Frisbees in and out of the water.

Idyllic. Then a few incidents which, at first, cut me to the quick – putting me back into the ugly tempest that's been part of my life for the last number of painful years – and threatened to destroy the sense of safety and comfort I'd come to trust and value in this small coastal town.

I'd been scheduled for a book-signing at a local, independent book store. A local, weekly "magazine" published a so-called "review" of my newest children's book, "Where's God?" which never reviewed the book. Instead, the "reviewer" took the opportunity for a personal attack on me – someone she's never met.

First, she impugned my validity as a psychotherapist by asserting that since I did not have a relationship with my mother for the last two decades, I could not possibly have anything to offer people in need of guidance. She then finished me off with suggestion that the only people interested in my book-signing would be those who wanted to visit a homophobe.

My heart was so hurt. Frankly, my mother's lack of mothering hurt both me and my sister our whole lives; to have a "journalist" use that fact against me is adding insult to injury – but it is the way critics, who don't seem to be able to argue adequately against my traditional positions, try to discredit me in the eyes of others.

Furthermore, my two dear lesbian friends were equally devastated to see me attacked as a homophobe. They both realize that we disagree on a number of philosophical points, but we still share mutual respect and affection. The homosexual activists and other liberal activists don't seem to be able to disagree without attempting to destroy the opposing position.

Nonetheless, the book-signing went off well – so well that we ran out of books some 20 minutes into what was to be a two-hour book-signing.

But my heart hurt from that unprofessional, vicious, personal attack. Until the following week, that is, when two letters to the editor were published in my defense. It brought me to tears. I am used to most folks ducking out of the way, not coming to the support of me or my right to a position.

Then, that same week, as I was leaving a restaurant with my husband, son, sister, two nephews and my best male friend ("gay"), a fellow seated with two others actually yelled out, "There goes a hypocrite!" Frankly, I'd had enough. This was a public attack and I was no longer going to walk on by.

"What do you mean by that?" I said back to him. He was clearly surprised that I retorted. He looked very uncomfortable and mumbled a bit. Women at the next table told me to ignore him, that it wasn't worth it. I said back that it was. I asked him to define hypocrite. He said that it was somebody who said one thing and did another. I asked him to give me one example of how that fit me. He tried to hide behind his menu. The two other men were silent. Everyone on the patio was riveted. When he wouldn't answer, I told him to "... stand up like a man and defend his statements." At that point, he got up and walked over to where I was standing.

Frankly, I let him have it. Years of these unfair, ugly, hurtful, destructive and untrue, dirty attacks had to be addressed here and now. I challenged him immediately. I asked him if he were "gay." He said it wasn't the point. I said it was definitely the point. I told him that he had chosen to embarrass me in front of strangers, in public, when I was with my son and family. I asked him what he thought gave him the privilege of breaching all those rules of decency.

He said he'd listened to my radio program and that I didn't show compassion to homosexuals. I asked him how he was role-modeling compassion by assaulting me verbally, in public, in front of my son. He said homosexuals have been on the receiving end of prejudice – to which I said, "I'm female and I'm Jewish and I'm Dr. Laura. Homosexuals don't corner the market on experiencing prejudice."

Gary, my friend, asked him how he imagined that we could be friends if I were hateful towards "gays"? I told the fellow that the compassionate product of the homosexual activists' attacks on me, my personal life, my career, was his yelling at me in public. I also said that he knew nothing about me or my life – that he was parroting what he was brainwashed to believe because that served the activists' agenda. He listened.

I could see that he felt badly about what he'd done. He apologized. We shook hands. I delivered a copy of (lesbian, feminist activist) Tammy Bruce's book "The New Thought Police," so he could read the truth about the homosexual activists and my public positions. We parted in peace.

I have been asked over the years to present myself more personally – as I have in this column. I have resisted due to a desire for privacy and a real fear that opening up would be like spreading blood in the seas – the sharks would come. Well, they come anyway. Maybe its just time for me to open up more.

I deleted that post, bendict (something I rarely do), as I realized it had to do with pique's silliness, and not my posts.

I do not see what is silly in the very intelligent post Pique gave us ....I find it so arrogant to tell everybody that there is only one way to think or believe and that other religions or people with no religion are necessary in the right.

Would you call that a form of cultural autism ?

...But saying in a group of all kinds of intelligent and sensitive people from different countries, roots and life course that they know the truth and that it is as they say and they are wrong and/or silly makes me think of a very authoritarian parent.

[/b]

When I wrote Tick-tock yesterday it was tactless and yes, silly- I admitted as much. But here I am with Benedict; Pique's post was anything but silly given what has been written in this thread and others when this question of Biblical interpretation and the Word is raised. Shantinik has been accused of picking and choosing from the said Word to suit an ideological framework. Well let me say that picking and choosing is not limited to any one side of this debate. Pique's post clearly states the irony of each argument in a very humourous fashion. No it is not silly it is more than appropriate, it is highly relevant.

There is more than a hint of authoritarianism here.

_________________________"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

If you want, I can look for all the parts of God's words that are utterly out of sync with what is generally accepted as civilized.

Nothing wrong with that. They were written in times where nobody questioned slavery or stoning.

Fortunately, laws are made according to more modern (and human) criteria and life is less cruel under legislators rule than under God's rule.

I think people who want millions of moslems to live according to tribal rules of the 7 th century dangerous and inhuman.

What is the matter with you people ? Are you the US version of the students of the Madrassas ?

Forgive my anger. But stop attacking people.Just answer in a polite and respectful way and refutate with arguments of today.

The Bible is an absolute authority only for fondamentalists.

Please do not vituperate, imprecate and damn people who feel that free will gives them an obligation to decide what they do on their values.

And please stop stoning people.

It is unpleasant, useless and slighly weak on the spiritual side.

It is like you were the ones always crying : "Crucify him", "Lynch'em".

What kind of Christians are you ?

What kind of human beings are you ?

(sorry, that was a part of me that wanted to say these things for a long time. I wish that part had stayed silent. But it felt it is not acceptable to stone Pique or LP when they express things that you do not like).

Where Shant and I disagree is over an interpretation of the New Testament. He sees it one way, I see it another.

Both will use what he feels bolsters his case.

And yes, sometimes that involves cherry-picking, but in the scriptures that I've referenced, I've tried more for an overview, than a specific one line of wisdom.

Which is why I think pique's post rises to the band of silliness, since the OT topics she refers to are not found anywhere in this discussion. Of course, I also find it somewhat ironic that pique will howl about her Jewishness, and then find a swipe at a prominent Jew funny. However, maybe that is OK amongst Jewish folks, I don't know.

As for authoritarianism - yes, on some things. If by authoritarian, you mean those things that are definitivly Biblically right, or wrong, I most certainly plead guilty.

No, it is true there are some things that are not grey. And I am also pleased to hear that at times you have selected only those passages that bolster your case and not those that could leave a grey area and be open to further debate or interpretation. For me there is also no grey area- only shades of Red. :p

_________________________"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae